Now you are saying something, theorizing, and I think you are on to something. The 'pure witness' is a version of eternity. It is what is always there. It is like 'God' in that it makes experience possible. The mystical version offers spiritual comfort in the obvious way. 'You are really a deathless universal awareness.' The metaphysical version is part of a machinery that conquers time, allows us to discuss the form of all possible experience, provide the space where pure-exact language-independent and culture-independent meanings live, safe from the ravages of time and relativism. Kant and Husserl didn't want to only be talking only about nerdy European white dudes in this or that era. They needed the very essence of what it meant to be human and rational. And so it seems do you, with your implicitly universal notion of 'Philosophy.' As Marx might tell Stirner and that kid in the The Sixth Sense might tell Bruce Willis... the ego is a spook ! The ghostbuster is a ghost... — jas0n

1. The 'pure witness' is a version of eternity.
-so you are trying to validate a made up supernatural agent with an idealistic concept that we can not be sure if it is possible to begin with? Both concepts do not offer philosophical foundations.

2.It is what is always there.
- So you assume observing capabilities to what is always there. You need to demonstrate it ...not assume it. If not your foundations are pseudo philosophical.
You are polluting the narrative in order to introduce...wait for it....

3.It is like 'God' in that it makes experience possible.
-And we are finally at the crux of all this pseudo philosophical salad of assumptions and speculations.
The good old "magic does everything".
Again I will inform you that you are not in the correct forum. YOu need to be posting in a Theological forum.
What makes experience possible is you existing, not having your sensory system deprived of stimuli and your brain up an running and not deprived from metabolic molecules(food and oxygen).

The mystical version offers spiritual comfort in the obvious way. 'You are really a deathless universal awareness.' The metaphysical version is part of a machinery that conquers time, allows us to discuss the form of all possible experience, provide the space where pure-exact language-independent and culture-independent meanings live, safe from the ravages of time and relativism. — jas0n

-None of the above are legit philosophical ideas. They are comforting beliefs dressed up was philosopy.
Again I will state the important point about Philosophy.
The Philosophical Method is an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of happiness.
Making up answers and assuming things you don't know ease our anxieties so you should be skeptical of your assumptions.

Are we on the same planet? I am criticizing the concept of the pure witness in this thread. If you can't see that, you are lost in a private dream, sir — jas0n

-And what is the wise conclusion that is produced by criticizing this made up concept sir?
How this conclusion can add in our understanding, inform and affect our lives and expand our wisdom.
Metal gymnastics of concepts that are isolated from reality don't offer wisdom.
In this case it only sneaks in supernatural ideology since pure witnesses do not exist(as far as we can tell).

If you haven't looked into Popper, I encourage you to look into my other thread. Observation statements are philosophically nontrivial. Sellars also sees in his own way what Popper calls the swamp on which our knowledge is built. — jas0n

-You keep going to the extremes. From Observation statements(almost deductive tautologies) to metaphysical presuppositions and magical claims.
You do understand that there is a huge middle ground where philosophy lies, right?????
Science and Philosophy on Naturalistic principles is successful because it takes risks in its predictions because they product of induction/abduction.
You should ALSO arrive to probable conclusion from what you know!!!
Instead you start from things you don't know and you push a narrative as if it was right.
How on earth can you ever say that your conclusion is wise...thus Philosophical.
Sorry sir but your sophistry is part of theology and superstition, not philosophy.

Your claims following your opening lines gloriously prove that:
-"Things that are seen come and go, are happy or sad, pleasant or painful—but the Seer is none of those things, and it does not come and go. The Witness does not waver, does not wobble, does not enter that stream of time."
Zero skepticism for the made up agent or its qualities!

Have you not realized that I'm analyzing and criticizing the concept ? The real work is done not by repeating well-known mantras that fit on bumper stickers but down in the weeds with the details. So far I'm just picking up a garden variety scientism in your posts. I say that as an old atheist who thinks that even the 'self' and 'consciousness' are inventions, pieces of technology, culture not nature. — jas0n

-Again you dishonestly bring up scientism when I already have stated that Science is not the only source of epistemology and science can not answer everything (i.e. question of meaning and value).
So if you repeat this strawman you will prove your dishonesty to me and that your strawman is more of a ad hominem.

The real work is done by putting together bits and pieces of facts and reason without polluting them with unfalsifiable metaphysical assumptions!
You start by making unfalsifiable claims like.
-" In other words, the ultimate reality is not something seen, but rather the ever-present Seer. "
-How do you know that the ultimate reality differs from the reality we can observe. What are your objective facts that lead you to that conclusion?
How do you know and can prove this ever-present seer(whatever this deepity means) and on what evidential grounds to you equate an unobservable ultimate reality to a made up ever present peeping tom??
I can go on exposing all those unfounded deepities which prove my point on the pseudo philosophical nature of your statements.
YOU assume things that you NEED to prove. They need to be part of your conclusions not your presuppositions.
Making declarations that suit your narrative is an irrational and its more of a theology than philosophy

I'm afraid that your eccentric use of 'philosophy' is anything but authoritative. — jas0n

There is nothing eccentric about the use of the philosophy.
Philosophy is defined by its etymology (Love of wisdom).
The philosophical method is defined by Aristotle.
1. epistemology
2. Physika
3. Meta physika
4. Aesthetics
5.Ethics
6.Politics
From the moment someone chooses to ignore the first two steps he no longer "practices" Philosophy.
He is making speculations based on his personal goals and emotional needs.
This is known as religion or magical thinking.
Again you can not get wisdom from claims that aren't based on knowledge or verified principles.(i.e. Naturalistic).

You can do what so many have done before and try to impose a narrowing of the concept, but you don't get it for free. — jas0n

- Of course I can! This is what Natural Philosophy did and watch the result....a 500+ years of epistemic run away success while pseudo philosophy still struggles with unanswerable idealistic or supernatural questions.
Again Philosophy has a goal set by its etymology and the need it was created to address...our need to understand the world through wisdom....not to make a world that we would love to be real.

-"Capitalizing the word is rhetorically questionable (suggestive of mysticism, idolatry, etc.) "
-I only demand a meaningful use of the method for the production of frameworks that have real intellectual value, like this method was intended to do . Philosophy was not invented for us to pretend to know things we don't and can't prove. Its one thing to produce questions and an other to poison the well or beg the question.....Again we already have such tools , its called religion.

It's just a word, a thing people do, not the name of the divine. Another poster likes to capitalize 'reason,' and sure enough personification followed, turns out she's a Lady. — jas0n

-Words have meanings and descriptive powers. By the etymology of the word and the definition of what is wise we can see that NOT all things people do qualify as "philosophy".
Reason or better Logic is an essential tool for wisdom to be possible.

Distorting words doesn't affect what we value. Knowledge wisdom, truth are essential values for our claims. When a claim doesn't tick those values...then they are not philosophical.
You can call them philosophical all you want but that doesn't really make them.

Why are you listening to other people's metaphysical beliefs???
Being an atheist (the minimum position) means to not be convinced of claims about god's existence.
Now of course God is primarily a concept. Its a concept that includes multiple qualities and ontological claims.
If one is convinced that god is only a made up concept that isn't tied to an actual agent then he is an Antitheist.
The burden of a Theist is to provide objective evidence for the ontological reality of that concept.

So "new atheism" is nothing more than exposing religious wrong doings that have crippled societies and epistemology for ages.
Religious people and magical thinkers don't like it so they accuse the messenger for exposing their bad practices.
Now I am not sure that you understand what "evangelical"means. Atheists bring the BAD news about religious practices...how that qualities as "ευ αγγελικον" (a good/great announcement)???

-"Sam Harris: Mostly focuses on the ills of religion (terrorism, oppression of women, and so oon)"
-yes , philosophy is the study of facts in an attempt to produce wise claims. Identifying the issues religions cause is a philosophical endeavor!

Richard Dawkins: Science and religion are incompatible. That's his mantra. Emphasizes Darwin's theory of evolution, and pits it against religious creationism — Agent Smith

-Again he is making acknowledgment on facts and issues created by religion. Religions compete with science in cosmological and biological claims. They try to pollute our epistemology by attempting to introduce their myths in the classes.
Again this is what we expect form philosophy....to observe the facts and highly the implications wisely.

Peer review could work only if the peers are honest, objective, and of diverse capacities. I have not seen evidence that there is sufficient rigour in determining that peer reviewers are sufficiently honest and capable. — Yohan

-well that is a condition but its not the only self correcting mechanism of the process. Objectivity binds the published findings but it also binds the critique. The economic system we are in forces integrity and sufficient honesty to the process. Why is that? Because journals are competing for state so if they manage to publish objectively robust studies that can't be shaken, they will have an edge over others. The same is true for scientists. If they manage to offer objective objections of a study or even an accepted theory this means accolades and wealth for them and the journal publishing their critique.
Its like the air transportation industry. Growth of works comes from an excellent track record. Sure skipping services is a way to save money but having your planes not falling from the sky is a far superior way to increase your sales.
Do you get why science (like air services) are some of a few "industries" that use the economic system in favor of the end product???

So if you want your work to be reviewed for logical soundness, yet there are no logicians on the panel of peers, for example, it's not likely to be rigorously reviewed for logical soundness. — Yohan

-First of all, logical soundness is achieved by the objective verification of claims. So in peer review processes logicians aren't necessary. Basic Logic is more than enough.What is necessary is a good knowledge of current epistemology avoidance of logical fallacies(by demanding evidence) and rejection of non methodological and naturalistic principles.

I'd like to see a checklist for all the things peer reviewers check, and a checklist for all the things looked for in choosing a peer to do peer review. — Yohan

-Peer reviewers check the claims in relation to the offered facts, the methodology and the standards used in a study.

I'm very very skeptical that the peer review process is at all rigorous on the whole. — Yohan

-You should but that doesn't mean that it isn't a successful process. Issues with integrity or pure incompetent can only delay the final evaluation of studies. The self correcting mechanisms (Objectivity, independent verifiability,meta analysis/ life long falsifiability) offer a dynamic platform where frameworks can rise and fall based on the same high criteria independent of personal agendas.

-"I am only now starting to research peer review, and so far it doesn't look promising. "
-This is only because your expectations were not reasonable. Again the process is messy and slow but it is really successful in keeping nonsense away from science.

You are heading the question of the thread in a good direction, that of matching the physics to the philosophy for confirmation.

We note that the candidate for the base existent cannot be composite, for then it couldn't be fundamental since its parts would have to be more fundamental. This suggests that it has to be partless as well as of the least size. The quantum 'vacuum' fits the bill or is close to it. The base existent is therefore unbreakable, unmakeable, and thus eternal. — PoeticUniverse

-I am not sure of your conclusion. That sounds more of an idealistic belief than a product of observation and objective evaluation of facts.
I mean, humanity since Democritus was obsessed by the idea of finding the A- tomon (unbreakable) but nature constantly reminds us that our wishes are not how things work. We ended up with a quantum Zoo, new forces are suggested and indications of additional layers are surfaced all the time.
So I am not confident of your reasoning since it is in direct conflict with facts.

What’s Fundamental has to be partless,
Permanent, and e’er remain as itself;
Thus, it can only form temporaries
Onward as rearrangements of itself. — PoeticUniverse

-Again I am not sure of your first premise. "Partless" appears to be more of an observer relevant term than an intrinsic feature of the substrate. It appears to be more of a system than one "thing".
With the rest I have no issues.

-I

The Simplest can’t be made; it has no parts;
Likewise, it can’t break; ne’er ‘Nothing’ starts;
Thus, Necessity, without alternative,
Makes the Big Bang and our transient hearts. — PoeticUniverse

-Again "simplest" is a relevant term. Sure particles displaying kinetic properties are far simpler than biological and chemical properties produced by larger structures.....but still there are more than one particle. The same appears to be for the cosmic substrate...and I don't know if it is even reasonable to project our observations or our reasoning to a realm that we have no access.

The quantum ‘vacuum’ weaves the universe’s dress. — PoeticUniverse

-The point is that "vacuum'' might not be the correct term in the case of the cosmos.

Are the fields spooky as non physical?
Since the elementaries are physical,
And because they are outright field quanta,
The quantum fields are purely physical. — PoeticUniverse

- even being a Methodological Naturalist I would avoid the term physical. Physical is more of an emergent property of the energetic substrate so I would prefer the world Natural. Quantum fields display natural properties.

The ‘vacuum’ has to e’er jitter and sing,
This Base Existent forced as something,
Due to the nonexistence of ‘Nothing’;
If it ‘tries’ to be zero, it cannot. — PoeticUniverse

- I generally agree with that. Its the most reasonable conclusion based on the meaning of those concepts and the available facts.
I don't see major disagreements in our positions.

Science doesn't produce objective facts.

I said nothing about independent verification, which is one aspect of what's called science, yes. — Xtrix

-So you don't get which quality is responsible for "independent verification"..... Let me give out some letters...it starts with "object" and ends with "ivity"...............
The objective nature of facts allow independent verification.
Being in denial of reality is not an argument.

-"First try showing you're not a complete imbecile before giving anyone advice about courses they should take."
-Its not my fault sir. If you are ignorant of the objective nature of the Scientific Method and the produced knowledge, then something must be done if the for you is to continue conversing on this topic.

-"I realize I've wounded your ego, but statements like the above only prove my point."
-by denying facts???lol.....again this is not how valid or sound arguments are formed.

-"You're mostly a waste of time. "
-and how would you know without basic knowledge on the subject...pls take that course mate!

But in case anyone is following along this weird exchange: metaphysical naturalism, so called, is indeed what I'm talking about. — Xtrix

-you literally stated :"-"Empiricism is fine, and I have a high respect for science, but your idea of what is "real" is a philosophical belief."
Science identifies what is real by justifying Knowledge Based beliefs...not a philosophical ones. This is achieved because the scientific claims that describe reality are Objectively true with Current facts( not absolute true based on ultimate knowledge/red herring).

You don't understand that Knowledge is a subset of belief. No reasonable individual will NOT believe in a knowledge claim. When you introduce the term " Philosophical belief" in Science's Objective empirical evaluations and frameworks, is when you meshed up and you are in need of some basic education between Philosophical Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism objective verification, and of course the differences between Knowledge based and Faith based beliefs.

Whatever "confusion" you're referring to you've simply invented, so that you can further pretend to act as an authority of some kind. But that's your own business. — Xtrix

- you do understand that computers since 1978 have this thing called "copy paste". I can copy paste your confusing statements and beat them up!

so your answer for my comment you quote:
"You are confusing Methodological Naturalism with Ontological Naturalism. Again the remedy is a course on Philosophy of Science."
...was the following:
-"True, many scientists are religious men and women -- what one may call religious or spiritual naturalists. That has nothing to do with what I'm saying."
-Red herrings are your specialty!

-"(Side note: knowing the various "isms" of philosophy is usually a sign of someone who can't think his way out of a paper bag.)"
-that sounds like a self critique. Again take a course on Philosophy of Science and you will understand why MEthodological Naturalism is not a metaphysical worldview but an Acknowledgement of the limits in our methodologies and why Science offers Objective Knowledge based beliefs...not faith based ones.


-"I never once mentioned scientists. Take a course on reading. And go create Scarecrows elsewhere."
-Last time a checked scientists are human beings and they are the ones who practice scientific methodologies.
This is really simple, I think I will have to explain to you what objectivity means.
When one can arrive at the same results with the method published by others that means that the conclusions are objective based on an objective methodological process. They all have access to the facts, the same observations and the same final conclusions. This means that personal feelings beliefs and viewpoint are not able to change all the above.
I don't know why this is so difficult for you...seriously.

-"(Why is it always the most ignorant among us who dole out statements like "Do your homework" and "Go take a course" or "Go read xyz," etc?)"
-this is something between you and yourself.....Now go take that course and learn what Objectivity is.
Learn why Scientific methodologies reject subjective interpretations and evidence.

And what's the objective verification or objective verification? — Xtrix

oh! we already reached the ad Absurdum part of the conversation. Good this means that the end is near of this painful interaction.
Logic my friend....Basic Logic. Subjective claims have produced thousands of magical claims(religions, mystical woo, spiritual worldviews, ghosts, snake oil remedies etc etc etc etc).
Objective evaluation of any claim is how we protect ourselves from con artists.
Objectivity is verified EVERY time we put it on the test.
The acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth is accepted as knowledge because it has being objectively verified again and again. We can shoot rockets to space because we know what acceleration is needed to escape gravity. We can calculate objective facts in order to design airplane wings and allow them to fly,
Again I am not sure you understand what Objectivity is!
Objective it doesn't mean absolute true or correct. IT means that a claim or an observation is in agreement with current accessible facts and others can verify that!!!!!!!

-"Perhaps the world isn't "objective" at all. Perhaps ideas like "nature" itself have a long history and have changed in meaning as time passes."
-Finally its confirmed...you don't know what "objective" means....but instead asking for definition, you blindly attack science...great.

Or we can stick with the faith (religion) vs. science view -- very commonplace, very simplistic. If this is what all this "philosophy of science" class-taking produces, I'm not impressed. — Xtrix

-actually its Science vs Magic and Religion.
there is a great course by UCLA on this arm race between scientific and magical thinking and how magic thinking gave rise to religions and returned to fuel new age spiritual beliefs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3Zx-qcNZf4&list=PLFFD1C791A86FB485

Here is a short lecture on the Nature of Science by Paula Hoyningen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYK7uhQ_QCk
and his full lecture.(if you are interested I can send you other lecturers too).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP8teUgZcBY&list=PLGV2ddg-PFGvWKDeTyrUji7TXY8y1SHjl
Again...they are free.


-"My honest advice: take a course in the philosophy of science. Don't just talk about it -- really do it. Also: reading comprehension and writing.
You're out of your league. "
-Self critique is encouraging...keep it up!
Cheers.
ps. Pls Let me know what went wrong with your "subjective" definition for "objective". ; )

even if Einstein or others did assume creation or a creator, that would only be product of their metaphysical beliefs ...not a product of their Science.

The quote referred to "scientific method[s}" to contrast with "philosophical methods". Note, I added the "s" to improve the parallel, and to make you feel better. — Gnomon

-again, its irrelevant to the fact that Methodological Naturalism is not a metaphysical view but an acknowledgment of our limits of our methods.

-"On what basis do you make that factual claim?"
-Null Hypothesis. Any existential claim need to be rejected until objective facts can falsify our initial rejection. So its not a factual claim, its the default position one should hold on unfalsifiable existential claims. The existence of a creator needs to be demonstrated...not assumed.

-"Yes, But I also see the acknowledgement that the BB could be construed as a creation event. "
-Fallacy of Ambiguity. Using the term poetically doesn't imply what you need to prove....

-"Which is why Einstein, among others, resisted the idea."
-He questioned the observations...this is what any scientists should do and demand independent verification. Why are you using celebrity scientists to support your metaphysical arguments? You do know what a fallacy from false authority is...right? Einstein was expert in physics..not on metaphysics.

-" He had assumed that the universe was self-existent. But was forced to change his mind. "
-He "install" a made up constant...remember? He was forced out of his belief through objective facts.

-" Some scientists quibbled that the BB was not an "explosion in space" but an "expansion of space'. But even that clarification avoided the issue of how space came to be."
-the BB was NOT an explosion...nothing banged. IT was an expansion of a change in state of energy.
The space is "created" by the distance between structures of the universe. The cosmic(previous state) just exists.

-"Had it always existed somewhere in the Great Beyond, or was it "created" from nothing? "
-Again Nothing can not be a state of being...since nothing is not being. How can nothing "exist" when it is NOTHING?

-" Since I know nothing about the Great Before, like most non-specialists, I accept the BB philosophically & metaphorically as a "creation event". "
-Not a creation and no creator in our scientific framework. It was a cataclysmic event for cosmos that allowed the existing quantum brewing substrate to enable the formation of the universe.

-"Besides, all other pre-BB explanations, such as Multiverses, are also Creation Myths. "
-Not really, but if you like the word, be my guest. As long as you don't bootstrap magical tool-men, we are ok.

“The basic laws of the universe are simple, but because our senses are limited, we can't grasp them. There is a pattern in creation.”
___A. Einstein
https://www.azquotes.com/author/4399-Albert_Einstein/tag/creation

"The Big Bang Is Hard Science. It Is Also a Creation Story."
___Barry Powell

indeed, I placed them backwards. — Nickolasgaspar — Gnomon

-Again posting poetic takes on metaphysics by scientists doesn't help your case.
ITs the same fallacy of ambiguity all over again. "dna is a language, or a code", "information is an intrinsic feature of nature" etc etc. Our language implies agency because it was evolved by mind of thinking agents.
That doesn't mean that this ambiguity supports your metaphysical beliefs.
I think its a waste of time to point out the obvious....

you too! Good luck fighting the "beast of irrationality"( which isn't necessarily wrong, but this is the whole point! Its not EVEN wrong). Cheers!

I am referring to metaphysical claims and discussions that have zero ties to established knowledge. I am not dismissing Metaphysical syllogism that originate from verified knowledge claims m speculating on what they imply for reality based on known rules that govern our world.
Those are two different things.

I suspect your own concept of the 'metaphysical realm' belongs in this same realm by your own standards, and that you've just not recognized that yet. — jas0n

-My metaphysics do not belong in realms. They are limited by Methodological Naturalism and that makes them meaningful because they can be evaluated or even if they are not falsifiable(yet) they do not need unknown realms to be assumed.

I suggest you start your own thread on this issue (should have said this in my previous reply.)
Or please try to address the topic of this thread. — jas0n

-I might do that but that is irrelevant to my remark. My short point wasn't to start a different topic inside yours. My intention was to point out that those ideas are not Philosophy.
Those are just declarations or unfounded statements that lack objective foundations. Without solid foundations(epistemology) we can not go much further from that starting point!

How can you enrich this conversation without any data...just with faith based claims!?
Philosophy, as I said before, is an exercise in frustration not the pursuit of happiness.
Concepts like the "Transcendental Ego" appear to be more of a product of a death denying ideology (orphaned by facts) than a legit philosophical topic that could allow us to arrive to wise statements about our ontology.

Without knowledge you can never be sure of how wise your conclusions are...and without wise conclusions(or questions) we don't have Philosophy!
i.e. The statement "use the window to exit your apartment" might be wise if the door is locked and you have misplaced your keys, but it can be a really idiotic suggestion if you ignore the floor of the apartment!!!
Again you can not produce wise claims without using knowledge as your foundation.
You can not call "philosophy" ideas that are set on shaky metaphysical assumptions and untestable (not necessary proven) principles.

Perhaps. But, since this is a philosophical forum, I'm referring to the position defined in the quote below. So, there's not much distinction between them. :smile: — Gnomon

-Well the definition is wrong or vague at best. First of all there isn't such a thing as A scientific method. There are many methodologies in science and the limits and standards are defined by Methodological Naturalism. Secondly it doesn't distinguishes the two main types of Naturalism. (ontological as a worldview vs methodological as an acknowledgement of our epistemic limitations)
You should take an Academic Mooc on Philosophy of science if you want to learn about their differences. Copy pasting the first definition it pops up...especially when the term (Methodological) is NOT included in the result...is not the best way to gain information...

-"I have been surprised at how many prominent scientists have referred to the BB as a "creation event". You can Google some of their quotes."
-colloquial use of the term, maybe polluted by personal metaphysical beliefs. That is an argument from false authority. The fact is that the formation of the universe was not a creation act...at least we can not make that claim.

-""There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]." ___ Robert Jastrow, astronomer, physicist"
- yes, learning new things can be emotional...what is your point and how can you connect that to a philosophical worldview????

"An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!" __ Stephen W. Hawking"
-Cherry picking on Stephen's poetic irony? You do see the irony in his words.....don't you???


-" - [1] Anthropic principles and [2] statistical probabilities are not even in the same ball park. The first is a conclusion based on available facts and the second presupposes teleology and purpose behind a creation.(fallacy). — Nickolasgaspar

I assume your comment got [1] & [2] backward. :wink:

ANTHROPIC ASSUMPTIONS
A. We can identify which natural properties are necessary or compatible for life
B. Evolution follows natural laws and inherent limitations set by initial conditions & constants
C. The element Carbon, only produced in certain stars, is essential to life, but is rare (.025%) on Earth
D. The initial conditions of our universe were selected from all possible logical (mental) or actual (multiverse) combinations
E. The complex pathway to Life has a low statistical probability
F. An unlikely occurrence is not necessarily a miracle, but must have some ultimate Cause
Book Review of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle".

indeed, I placed them backwards.

The don't agree with the second premise. Evolution is the product of natural processes(law?), The limitations are set by random events (non deleterious mutations that allow an organism to survive)and ever changing conditions of the environment!!!

The C point is also irrelevant. The rarity of an element say nothing about its ability to form more compounds than all the other elements combined. Its rare only relative to the size of the earth's crust. Obviously its more than enough to act as a catalyst for lifeforms on the planet.
A surprising thing would be if there were carbon based lifeforms without any carbon on the planet....

D is also a massive failure. Claiming what one needs to prove is a red flag. -"The initial conditions of our universe were selected....". first of all you will need to prove that a selection among many choices was available and it actually took place. The truth is that we just DON'T KNOW whether the characteristics of the universe were inevitable...and of course it is the fallacious thinking of the puddle by Douglas Adams all over again. I hope you have heard about it and understand that it is more likely for water or a "flexible" biology to fit exactly in a pot hole or an environment that sustains pockets of life....than to find life evolving in an environment that doesn't sustain life.

E. an other huge failure "The complex pathway to Life has a low statistical probability". And how one can calculate the probabilities exactly? Since we have ended up with a huge diversity of life forms, its not only probable......but its also POSSIBLE.
Complexity doesn't imply low statistical probability. The immense number of galaxies, solar systems, moons and planets do not favor this unfounded claim. Probabilities are Mathematical calculations. I would like to learn what variables are used to reach that conclusion.

F. "An unlikely occurrence is not necessarily a miracle". The problem is that unlikely occurrences happen and they are verified all the time ( read Ricard Feynman take on that). We can not say the same thing about miracles though......
'' but must have some ultimate Cause"
-Sure....and we can drop the "ultimate" since it only introduces woo and zero information plus it poisons the well. So now we need to identify and verify that cause. Until then we should stick with what we know and what we can verify to be in agreement with current facts. Anything beyond our current epistemology is irrational and "not even wrong".

Science doesn't produce objective facts. "Science respects Objectivism" is meaningless to me -- and I don't know why you capitalize it. If you're referring to Ayn Rand's philosophy, then I have no idea why you'd invoke it here. — Xtrix

1. Objective, independent verification is one of core scientific standards used in the evaluation of all theoretical framework. If that says nothing to you then you should take a modern course on Philosophy of Science ASAP.

What is called science -- astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology -- has a multitude of methods, questions, assumptions. If we want to make generalizations, I tend to hold to the historical perspective, where "science" is natural philosophy. What we're "doing" when we do science is treating the world as natural or physical -- i.e., objective -- as substantive, quantitative, material. It takes on a view of the world as an object, a machine, or as forces acting on matter. Without this naturalistic assumption, it's hard to believe one is doing science. We look for natural explanations to natural phenomena.
All of what I said above is an ontological position. None of it is "arbitrary," nor did I say that. — Xtrix

-You are confusing Methodological Naturalism with Ontological Naturalism. Again the remedy is a course on Philosophy of Science. Paul Hoyningen-Huene has a great course for free on his Youtube channel. (no need of a Mooc subscription).

-"It's as if you treat science as an industry that "produces" and "provides" human beings with "objective evidence," etc. If you pardon me, but that's a rather outdated view."
-You are confusing scientists with science. Again...take that course.


-"Yes, we do. The fact you don't think faith is involved is exactly my point: you're a follower of scientism. Science and its methods don't require faith because it deals with objective truth, with reason. A view I once held, too. Ultimately misguided, but gives one a nice epistemological grounding."
-lol Again ....objective verification or falsification makes faith redundant, either we have facts to support our frameworks or we don't......so this is how this will go lol?
Not taking claims on faith is why we use this method. You are obviously way to ignorant to talk about this topic.
I rest my case.
Take a course on Philosophy of Science....

First of all the title of the thread is scientifically wrong in relation to the opening statement.

Darwin's framework describes the origins of the diversity of life....not the origins of life and it's differences from inanimate matter.

Secondly the soul is a theological artifact... not a philosophical one. Science has never verified such a substance or find any room for the need is such a "construction", since the current biological model is on its own Necessary and Sufficient to explain agency. So not only this concept is a begging the question fallacy, but the only arguments one can make about it are either from ignorance or personal incredulity. There aren't any
real facts that can push this conversation beyond the initial question. The idea of the soul might be the most debunked and useless theological idea out of the a long list of extraordinary claims. It is a text book example of pseudo philosophical speculation based on a unfounded presupposition.

In addition to the above, soul is just one out of many discredited magical substances invented by people in their effort to explain simple phenomena. (Phlogiston/combustion, miasma/diseases, orgone energy/life etc etc etc).
This is medieval "philosophy".

These two assertions do not have the same truth value. — Mww

Last time I checked this was a philosophy forum, not a truth forum. How is this red herring useful?
By default, unfalsifiable claims have an unknown truth value.

-"A central metaphysical idea must only and always have ties to philosophy, and whether or not it is judged by a second party as proper philosophy or pseudo-philosophy, is predicated solely on the exposition its internal construction to which the second party has no access whatsoever. That which is deemed pseudo-philosophy may be merely proper philosophy misunderstood."
-Metaphysical Ideas don't automatically qualify as philosophical just because people accept them as central. That is a fallacy. Philosophical frameworks need to meet specific standards and follow a specific method which includes epistemology. The demarcation of philosophy is based on objective criteria.

No, it actually does not. Empirical science uses validation from experience, whereas some categories of philosophy are not amendable to any experience, therefore cannot use that toolkit for its validation. As that famous Enlightenment adage goes, “....though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience.... — Mww

- you missed an important word in my point.
I was referring to the theoretical part of science, not the methodological part. Science like philosophy provides theoretical frameworks(scientific hypothesis, theories, interpretations). The methodological(empirical) part is there to provide additional evidence for our theoretical work.

Be that as it may, the doing of is not the same as triggered by. Observation and extant knowledge merely serve as occasion for the doing, and that only conditionally. Consider, as well, that philosophy which has for its validation no observation or data whatsoever, re: moral philosophy. I shall trust you not to mistake merely objective behaviorism for the subjective metaphysical principles of moral constitution. — Mww

-again .... observation and interaction are followed by philosophical pondering. One can't reflect on nothing/zero stimuli. Data and Information are needed in order to come up with wise conclusions. This is why "wisdom" comes with experience...and Philosophy is all about wisdom.

Behaviourism is irrelevant and morality isn't based on "subjective metaphysical principles". Morality is an evolutionary trait that increases the well being and survival of populations.
Secular morality is Necessary and Sufficient to explain why Situational ethics and well being allow us to come up with objective moral evaluations....but this is an other topic.

Now THAT I like. I might say...... without empirical knowledge theoretical philosophy would never know if its conclusions were justified, specifically logic and mathematics, but that’s a hair that doesn’t need splitting. In the interest of technical precision, maybe, but, I get your point nonetheless — Mww

-finally we agree on something. Science is nothing more than philosophy with the addition of a set of empirical methodologies. No need to split hair indeed.....BUT there was a really good reason why science was forced to split from Academic Philosophy.
The good thing about science is that it doesn't allow questionable principles to pollute our metaphysics and epistemology. Science subscribes to Methodological Naturalism and uses its principles as an acknowledgement of our epistemic and methodological limitations.
Academic philosophy , on the other hand, allow all kind of principles to pollute our syllogisms rendering most of the produced work pseudo philosophical.
Unfalsifiable principles are equally useless as doing philosophy without any observations to reflect upon.

-"The question of the origin of existence still persists. It won't go away by ignoring it or accepting it.
It is the crux given unto man. To venture into the external terrain."
-Of course it does! It's a classic "Begging the question" fallacy,but since we as organisms constanlty experience processes with a beginning and an end, we also make this unfounded assumption for an abstract concept.

-"The darkness obliges us to fulfill this intellectual endeavor, but I've found that outer space holds no difference from here on earth, nor the inner meditations of man."
- you have investigated the outer space in a degree that you can address concepts as existence?

-"Another question remains, how do we figure it out? What tools must be employed to dissect existence?''
-Tools that can produce objective evidence for our claims.

-"Will it be just a mathematics that was arisen from the friction of time?''
-Math like any tool and language of logic are acceptable to the GIGO effect (Garbage in Garbage out). In order for our reasoning, either through mathematical formulations or Basic Logic etc, to be meaningful and relevant, credible objective facts are needed as a foundation.

-"Well, which one is it? Is it a spontaneous emergence of energy violating law of conservation, or is it just a potentiality?"
-I will suggest to read more about it and why this observation was awarded(Nobel Prize). We can observe those virtual particles affecting particles of our universe. Their emergence is so brief that their energetic footprint isn't summed in our Universe.

-"So it appears that matter is merely virtual and arises from quantum fluctuations of a quantum vacuum with no violation of conservation of energy. Nice"
-Bad philosophical interpretations of facts.

-"Now we will have to change existence from being matter and energy to it being quantum fluctuations."
-Again matter(energy of this universe) is a change of state caused by a cataclysmic event 13.7 billion years ago. No Matter is not "merely virtual", matter is just an other state of the " same" energy.

-"The question of existence still remains...
Where do quantum fluctuations come from? "
Again I am not sure those are good questions or meaningful if existence if the only....... state of being for the cosmos and quantum fluctuations is its default energetic state allowing (now and then) changes and processes to emerge(like our universe) due to its fluctuations.

-So....not a fan of abstract reasoning, huh?"
-No problem with abstract reasoning as long as the concepts are defined and they are real.

-"Science is the best way to do philosophy kinda guy?"
-Science is the second fundamental step in any Philosophical endeavor...so I don't know what is your point exactly. You can not do science without philosophy and you can can only do bad philosophy without science or epistemology as your foundation.

-"You must be aware that our primary interests reside in what we don’t know, right? "
-Correct and comforting our existential and epistemic anxieties is also part of our primary interests, so we need to be careful about our presumptions and our unfalsifiable conclusions.
There is no problem in being interested in what we don't know or easy our anxieties with unfalsifiable answers.....the issue is when people believe that these tactics qualify as philosophy!

-"How can science inform as to what we don’t know, if we don’t ask of it questions it alone can answer, Science tells, it doesn’t ask, so....where do the questions come from??"
-Science, previously known as Natural Philosophy, uses the same theoretical toolkit with any other Philosophical category. Science is Philosophy(part of philosophy) on superior standards of reasoning and with a set of methodologies able to expand the available body of evidence...

The issue here is not Science vs Philosophy but Philosophy vs Pseudo Philosophy on really bad abstract reasoning. I am not here to argue in favor of knowledge but in favor of wisdom. Claims that do not provide any wisdom or expand our understanding aren't Philosophical By definition.
Philosophy is the struggle to understand the world through wise claims founded on what we already know, not to make up answers on arbitrary presumptions that we can not evaluate.

-"Must be something above/beyond/outside science, that causes it to do the one thing it does."
-what causes it to do the one thing it does?? I don't get what you are implying.


-"Metaphysics is that philosophy that causes science to tell us what we want to know, which makes explicit metaphysics is the only way to do science"
-Again the issue is not with metaphysics but with pseudo philosophy parading as such.

-". Except for sheer accident, no science is ever done, that isn’t first thought."
-Actually you are wrong...all philosophy is triggered by observations and data first...but again as I pointed out, Natural Philosophy(science) is a philosophical category that can go further than just from wisdom and produce credible knowledge. This new knowledge can feed our philosophy and produce further wise claims about our world.

So again the issue here is not which approach is the best. Science and Philosophy are necessary to each other.
Without knowledge(science) philosophy could never know if its conclusions were wise while without philosophy science would never know what our data mean.

So the issue is with pseudo philosophy pretending to be philosophy.

Metaphysics can be the base of our Scientific and Philosophical hypotheses.Conspiracy theories can never be that.
There is good an bad Metaphysics. For bad metaphysics...just look at Theology, Supernaturalism and most Philosophical worldviews (Philosophical Naturalism and idealism included)>
For good Metaphysics just look how science constructs testable hypotheses and how Natural Philosophers use the latest epistemology to inform their metaphysical speculations.

-"The predicate of existence: did it come from nothing, something else entirely, God?
What caused existence to be, and why?"

Let me first answer your questions

-"did it come from nothing": - No, we don't have an example of nothing so its more of an idealistic concept. Science shows us that there is a constant cosmic substrate that manifests in our universe through the phenomenon of quantum fluctuations.

-"something else entirely,": -change in the energetic state of cosmic fluctuations.

-"God": Not a philosophical topic....

-"Should we wonder how existence came to be or should we accept what Physicists have offered as an explanation?
-Why do you think that wondering about existence could be done independently from the facts provided by Physics. What kind of "philosophy'' doesn't take facts in to account?


-''I hear that existence came from "nothing":
-That statement depends on what "nothing" means to someone. The truth is that "nothing" is not a state of being, so nothing can not be ...by definition.
Physics provides some indications on what might exist/ed in addition to the material nature of our universe.

-"but I've also heard that it is part of a vast assortment of other universes in a conglomeration known as the "multiverse".
-the idea of cosmos containing many universes (either on a parallel or serial setup array) is the product of our math (string theory) our quantum interpretations (many worlds) and our observations (cosmic quantum fluctuations). This is where our science and philosophical questions start but we can never have answers based on our cultural artifacts (gods). In order to advance our frameworks we will need additional data.

-"Some scientists even postulate that there are "parallel universes" where you and I have other versions of ourselves that have made alternate choices in life, possibly every version of ourselves having been carried out."
-Not a scientific framework though ...All scientists are free to postulate their metaphysical views...but they are not part of our physics.(at least currently).

-"Surely, this would take freewill out of the equation, leaving behind a truly mechanical universe where there simply is no other choice than for there to be other versions of me, but at the same time some strange form of freewill where our choices diverged."
-Freewill is limited or out of the question due to biological mechanisms and reasons, not because of a hypothesized mechanical universe. Different mechanisms of the universe in different scales display different qualities. This is why Reductionism doesn't always works and this is Complexity Science deals with Emergence and Chaos in Nature.

-"What does the "multiverse" live in? Some sort of ultra-meta space that is beyond time and space perhaps?
-The word used is "Cosmos".

-How is it possible that "nothing" can create anything other than "nothing"? Would that not be an oxymoron?"
-Of course it is an oxymoron, we agree. Nothing is not something so that something can come "out of it". Nothing is not a state of being so it can not be. Sure early philosophical attempts to understand the implication of the big bang lead people to include "nothing" in their metaphysics. Religion also tried to promote a powerful creator who created everything ...out of nothing.
The truth is that we don't have an example of "absolute nothing", so probably we are dealing with an absolute simplification of an idealistic concept .

-"Either that, "something was always here" which is sort of a begging of the question. Or that there must be that which is supernatural, which could have created time and space."
-False dichotomy. Something was always here or something was not always here. This is a true dichotomy. Your suggested "second choice" falls in the first category (something was always here).
You are suggesting that "Something was there and it magically made up the stuff for our universe. Then you you add one more quality, that of the "supernatural" and I don't know how you can make that demarcation or demonstration.
After all the supernatural, like nothing, have never been observer or verified so I don't see how one can use them to argue in favor of a creation out of nothing.
In essence you have an unparsimonious "not even wrong" statement that is disconnected from our current epistemology and with serious issues in logic and in its definitions.
None of the claims and qualities used in this "choice" qualify as philosophical in my opinion. This alternative choice fits in a theological forum.

-"Either we have eternal time and space, and endless "begging of the question", an infinite regression of something upon something...or we have a miracle."
-No. In order to make any claim about the time we first need to define time. Time is the phenomenon where processes don't happen all at once and with different rhythms/pace. Since the older process we can observe is the universe, we can not talk about other processes producing their own time.
So based on that definition if our universe is not the only one, time (unrolling processes) can be eternal in the Cosmic stage.
Space(like time) is a property of our Universe emerging from its specific properties. Maybe other universes might have time (since they would be evolving processes) but their properties might not allow physical space to emerge.(who knows!).
What I want to point out is, that "either and or" dichotomies are not the best way to understand the available choices. Errors are common in our attempt to introduce our worldview in the list of choices.
btw miracle is not an answer (like magic).
Calling a mystery (existence) a miracle answers nothing. Coming up with an answer that is constructed to address a question by pointing to magic/mystery/miracle isn't the goal of Philosophy.
Philosophy has to take the available epistemology and wise questions and answers.
None of our theology can be accused for "wisdom" when it comes to their contributions in epistemology, methods of knowledge(science/cosmology), aesthetics ethics or politics.

-"I'd like to talk about a central metaphysical idea, which has been called 'consciousness' and 'transcendental ego' and 'pure witness.' This is not the self-image or personality or empirical ego. The ruling metaphor here is the eye which can see everything but itself."
-Well it may be a central metaphysical idea but it has zero ties to Philosophy or connections to any verified knowledge claim.
We can fill pages of discussion on that topic but nothing originates from real knowledge and none of what it will be said can ever leave the metaphysical realm. This is a text book example of pseudo philosophy.

mysticism in a philosophical forum?
The Philosophical Method is an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of comforting ideas.

-"As I mentioned, nature has had billions of years on billions of stars to hit on something like that. It happens by chance. Because it can. There isn't a "why". I mean, you're asking "why is there life?".
-Correct, Assuming teleology in natural processes is a fallacy. Purpose need to be demonstrated, not assumed, plus the properties we find in nature are Necessary and Sufficient to explain the emergence of complex functions and properties.

-"Every emergentist theory of consciousness I have come across associates consciousness with some kind of gradually emergent process or function. I can't improve on that, I can't think of a plausible emergentist theory that finds some binary event in nature and says 'That's where consciousness emerges'. Even if it did, there would still be the question "OK, but why can't that happen without consciousness? What is it about that that necessitates an experience?""
-Are you aware of the Ascending Reticular Activating System (ARAS) and the role of the Central Lateral Thalamus in the introduction of "context" in our conscious states?
Are you aware of the quantification methods of our conscious states described by Anil Seth?
Conscious states, are not the product of an on -off process. They are different degrees of conscious states throughout our day.
In Neuroscience there isn't a debate on the nature of consciousness or the main mechanisms responsible for this brain state. In addition to that Science can not verify mind properties emerging independent of brain. This is something that needs to be demonstrated not assumed.

-"Consciousness does not admit of degree
All process or functions admit of degree
Therefore consciousness cannot be a process or function."
-First of all can you pls explain to me what do you mean by the phrase "Consciousness doesn't admit of degree"?
Then can you tell me how do you know that?

-"What would qualify as a 'solid reason'? "
-An objective verification of mind properties existing independent of biological brains.
Like any other claim or worldview, panpsychism has a burden of proof. Its burden is quite high since it is in direct conflict with the current establish paradigm of Science!
That conflict alone qualifies as solid reason to reject panpsychism until objective evidence can falsify our initial rejection of course(Null Hypothesis).

Panpsychism can not provide any answers. Its a superstitious worldview not a Philosophical conclusion based on credible epistemology. Its more like an opinion of "how things appear to me", then "this is what knowledge and reason suggests".
About your question about having two hemispheres and each having their own consciousness, Vilayanur Ramachandran has some amazing studies on split brain patients who had the connections(corpus callosum) between their two hemispheres terminated (as a treatment for epileptic seizures). Long story short it is possible the same individual with disconnected hemispheres to hold two conflicting positions (atheist and theist).

We are pattern seeking creatures and we project agency in nature. We get mad with a hammer when it banged our finger, we curse an agent called " luck" in unfortunate situations, we give names and suffer with our bike and car issues, we share feelings for inanimate objects etc.
So the answer is quite simple. What motivates panpsychism is a heuristic called Superstition.
It played a huge role in the survival of our 'young" species and our modern populations carry this trait.

-"Naturalism takes the existence of this physical world for granted. So the scientific evidence for a specific "creation event" came as a shock. "
-Two issues. Naturalism is not one thing. Science is based on Methodological Naturalism..not Philosophical Naturalism.
Methodological Naturalism only acknowledges the limits of our methods of observation and verification.
MN and Science take nothing for granted. They just admit we can only produce descriptive frameworks within the naturalistic realm but we don't have methods that could verify or investigate other realms.
They don't dismiss other realms as wrong but in order to incorporate them in their frameworks a method capable to produce objective facts need to be available.

Now, In science the big bang event is not labeled as "creation"(since it would imply extra agencies) but as "formation" so there was no real shock caused by that observation.

-"But, they have adapted their belief in eternal Nature, to imagine explanations for a time-before-time, when our knowable world didn't exist as we know it. Yet, Multiverse & Many Worlds theories are simply extensions of their original Naturalist premises across the Big Bang abyss into the unknowable what-if."
-Not true either. Processes(cosmic time) before the process of the Universe(our time) is not an imagined explanation. Its a concept that keeps popping up in our math (string theory) in quantum mechanics(interpretations) and in our awarded (Nobel) observations (Quantum fluctuations).
A cosmic substrate interacts with matter that is formed in our universe and that is an indication that our universe is not all there is. In addition to that we already know that the universe didn't always exist as a process.
"Eternal Nature" as you named it is a reasonable conclusion since "nothing" as a state of being is a nonsensical concept. Something that has the potential to change state always exists.
Our cosmological metaphysics point to a change of energetic state of the cosmos thus allowing the process of universe to unroll.
Nothing is final of course but all those ideas are parsimonious, they are epistemically connected to current physics and we don't need additional supernatural entities or invisible realms to explain anything. We just use what we know it exists and hypothesize on possible mechanisms.

-"

Ironically, the Wiki quote below says he also used a statistical probability argument, for which the data must be imagined, to prove that our world is nothing special. Hence, not created by an omniscient deity. However, other scientists have used similar anthropic logic to prove just the opposite. — Gnomon

"
-Anthropic principles and statistical probabilities are not even in the same ball park. The first is a conclusion based on available facts and the second presupposes teleology and purpose behind a creation.(fallacy).

-" So, apparently, the Las Vegas odds are in favor of the "house", who determines the odds (premises) you will play with. "
-Actually in a vast cosmos the odds of energetic fluctuations producing new states are equal to the Las Vegas odds. We don't even know if it is something inevitable not to have universes in the cosmic stage. i.e. one who doesn't know how magnets work would find improbable for two magnets to always end up having the same "colors" stick to each other.
So we don't know many things about this source of virtual particles we observe so we can not declare it impossible, improbable or equal to casino odds....what we do know is that it's Possible.

These type of questions ignore basic facts about Science.
Science's philosophical backbone is that of Methodological Naturalism.(MN).
MN is not a worldview but an epistemic acknowledgement of our methodological and observational limitations. Science produces Descriptive Frameworks within the limits of our methods even if its metaphysics might include hypotheses on the ontology of a phenomenon. The "end product"/knowledge is always a description not a metaphysical assumption.
As long as god(s) or any other superstitious claim remain unobservable then science will not be able to provide a description of the alleged cause.
We as thinking agents created this tool called science in our effort to keep "magical explanations" away from our epistemology. We achieve that by producing sound arguments (verified premises) for every claim we accept as knowledge.
Trying to reconcile those two things(god and Science) is like valuing fallacious arguments.
So there aren't any scientific grounds for claims that are unfalsifiable, untestable and unobservable.

To be more precise,do we have any epistemology for the existence of God? If not, then how one can ever have a meaningful conversation for its existence or the rejection of the claim?
The concept of god is only relevant in anthropology and social sciences in general.

Ι really don't get it. How superstitious beliefs or the rejection of them(atheism) can ever be part of a philosophical discussion outside of Sociology.

-"Meta means after, metaphysics is what comes after physics (in Aristotle's corpus).

However, the subject matter of metaphysics is first principles of, inter alia, physics & all of philosophy which, logically, should come before physics. "

-Well this is not what metaphysics means. Metaphysics (μετα τα φυσικά) , in short, means "After you are done with your Science", meaning that any philosophical hypothesis that we form on the implications of what we currently know (science/φυσικά) inevitably falls beyond our current knowledge about our World.

So Metaphysics, according to its etymology and by definition is the philosophical step that follows Epistemology and Physika (Science).

-"Please don't give up on your Grail Quest for a definitive definition of the "M" word. "
-The definition of the word is already available to us. (Andronicuso of Rhodes made it clear to us)
Its any philosophical endeavor attempting to go beyond our current knowledge. Any conclusion that falls outside our Epistemology is understood as Metaphysical...that's all.
i.e.Evolution used to be a metaphysical claim until objective evidence rendered it in to Science
The big bang theory -//-
etc
Metaphysics is how we form hypotheses and science is how we verify or falsify them, its how we expand our Epistemology. Its how we form our Questions and guide our investigations.
So I will agree with you Metaphysics is the Third (in order) Most valuable step in the Philosophical Method. Without it we wouldn't have any progress in our philosophical/scientific inquiry

-"Yet, many physicists and philosophers reject such idealized notions as being-qua-being and essence to be un-real & super-natural, hence subversive of the Realistic & Materialistic dogma of post-Enlightenment Science. "
-Now you confuse Metaphysics with Supernatural. Supernatural Metaphysics is NOT philosophy. This is not because physicists and Natural philosophers reject those notions, but because you have ZERO epistemology to philosophize about such concepts. This is more of theology or Hollywood scripting than Philosophy.
Metaphysics IS an important step of Philosophy but MORE important are the steps of 1. Epistemology and 2. Physika (Modern Science). If you don't have any epistemic input to your Metaphysics then you have nothing to philosophize about...plus your metaphysics will always remain in the metaphysical realm since it will never inform the rest of the steps of the philosophical method(Aesthetics, ethics, politics), thus they can never become "wisdom", which is the ultimate goal of all Philosophical inquiries.!


-"FWIW, I have added a new post to my BothAnd Blog, as an attempt to explain, in more detail than possible in a forum post, my personal meaning of "Meta-Physics", as it applies to my personal philosophical and scientific worldview."

-Words have common usages. The best usage SHOULD have practical value, meaning that it should avoid ambiguities and it should be able to address a need to describe facts of life.
Metaphysics is any philosophical statement that can't be evaluated by our current understanding (knowledge) of the world. There are metaphysics that their conclusions expand on our current knowledge(Real Philosophy) and there are metaphysics that presume unfalsifiable dimensions(Supernatural) and they circularly conclude to them (Bad Philosophy).
One is guilty of the second type of philosophy when he accuses Philosophers/Physicists for rejecting their unfalsifiable supernatural principles.

-"Philosophy begins with the abstract and moves toward the concrete. "Here is the question, now what is the answer?"
-I will agree with Tom

For me these would be a definition of mediocre philosophy and even worse science. — Tom Storm

Both, science and philosophy are motivated by observations and epistemology.
This is where we come up with our questions. Science (the methodological part) allow us to produce better questions and answers by expanding our epistemology through objective and systematic methodologies of investigation.
Natural Philosophy and Philosophy in general both should respect our establish epistemology and both should inform their metaphysics on new available knowledge( latest science).
For a reason many think that our Metaphysics should not be limited by our current body of knowledge and for a even weirder reason, they believe their conclusions should be accepted as philosophy.
That is not possible. Ignoring knowledge is not wise and philosophy is in the business of providing wise claims about the world.

Now science and philosophy both describe the world through theoretical frameworks.
If a philosophical theory is based on our epistemology and the conclusion is verified....this is called science.
If it isnt' verified, it remains part of our philosophy (metaphysics).
IF a theory isn't based on any of our knowledge and the conclusion is unfalsifiable, we deal with pseudo philosophy.

-"Empiricism is fine, and I have a high respect for science, but your idea of what is "real" is a philosophical belief."
-Science respects Objectivism. Emprirical methodologies are accepted due to their ability to produce objective frameworks....not because of an arbitrary belief. Any method being able to produce objective facts is and will be highly respected.
Now what we verify as real in science is the product of an objective evaluation of available facts.
This isn't a philosophical belief but a Pragmatic Necessity based on the epistemic Acknowledgment of the limitations of our methods of investigation and observations.
We don't need to be absolute certain on what we identity as real, we only need to base our claims on the current available facts. This is an on going process of evaluation.

-""Real" is whatever science tells us is real, in this view."
-No real is whatever we can objectively verify to be manifesting in our observable reality. What science tells us is not the criterion here. Its what we can demonstrate objectively and science has the tools to do that with high Systematicity.
ITs the rules of logic and evidence that point to what is real. Science just provides the objective evidence for us to make the ruling.

-"It puts faith in the methods of science."
-No, we don't need faith to trust the methods of science. Those methods have been proven credible every single time we use them. Faith is believing in something without good reason. Science provides a mountain of good reasons to accept its frameworks and methods.

-" Thus it is itself a belief system -- often called "scientism.""
-No scientism is the belief that only science can provide knowledge claims and scientific methods can answer everything. Having a belief in a system that has proven itself again and again its called "being reasonable". Science is the most reliable, methodical and systematic method we currently have. That increase our confidence in our judgments but it also allow us to revise those judgments in the future because all scientific frameworks have a falsifiable nature.(objectivity ensures that).

-" It also signifies a certain view of truth -- one basically of correspondence between the "objective" outside world determined by science, and the "subjective" world of our opinions and feelings. "
-It signifies a certain way to evaluate irrational claims and irrational claims...not Truth. Science doesn't deal with absolute truths since its frameworks are tentative based on current objective facts and observations( observations advance,facts change thus our science may change).
4.300 conflicting religious dogmas, 160+ spiritual supernatural worldviews etc have proven the untrustworthiness of subjective interpretations, feelings and opinions used as foundations for ontological claims. Science does provide the evidence that render those interpretations irrelevant and useless. This ruling comes from logic..science only provides the evidence.

-"This is why nearly everyone who wrestles with these questions should read Descartes and Kant, at minimum, or at least familiarize yourself with their arguments. "
-Those two great philosophers have really bad arguments on metaphysics and what is real. Everyone should read them but they should also be informed of the epistemology and Basic Logic which render their arguments unsound and bad philosophy.

-" Then take a look at what Neitzsche has to say about "perspectives" and Heidegger about the subject/object distinction. All that is very useful."
-They are useful ...only in an idealistic frame of reference. Within Methodological Naturalism and Instrumentalism they are useless. Its a waste of time and a huge argument from ignorance in my opinion.

-"At the end of the day, I think what's called "science" is the best we have for making predictions and understanding causal relations."
-Well those two things is what renders Natural Philosophy superior, because we can verify that a philosophical claim has value from its ability to describe causes and provide predictions (instrumental value). Wisdom has nothing to do with absolute knowledge, or ultimate truth. It has to do with expending our understanding of our world with meaningful frameworks based on our Limited Knowledge and limited observations.
The "absolute and ultimate" is a subject of theology, not philosophy.

-" But rather than being the final court for truth, which encompasses philosophy (and relegates it to useless pondering), it is instead a subset of philosophy -- one which assumes the world is basically a material, mechanical phenomenon; i.e., "natural philosophy." "
-That is a factually wrong statement.
First of all science doesn't assume the world is material, mechanical etc.
Science is based on Methodological Naturalism meaning that we understand that the limits of our current methods of investigation and observations are limited within the Natural realm. So investigating the Natural aspects of the cosmos (matter, physical properties) is a Pragmatic Necessity, not an arbitrary philosophical bias.
That said, science doesn't reject the supernatural as wrong or not real. It rejects it as untestable, unobservable and unverifiable. The moment one comes up with methods that can objectively verify that realm, science will be using the principles of Methodological Supernaturalism.
Secondly science doesn't assume that the world is just mechanical. Complex/Emergent Science and Quantum Mechanics Prove that different scales of nature display different qualities and "behaviors".
You are attacking a strawman of science...not the actual system of methodologies.

Philosophy, as it is stated by the etymology of the world is the intellectual endeavor where thinking agents use current available knowledge and try to produce wise claims about our world.(Wisdom).
Philosophy is an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of comforting our selves.
Unfortunately most people place their comforting ideas under the "umbrella" of philosophy, but that doesn't make them philosophical ideas.

Science is the best way to do Philosophy since it respects and expands our epistemology allowing our philosophical claims to get wiser.